Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />violated the Compact, and the Court accepted the Master's findings. The remedy phase of the <br />trial was completed on January 28th. Kansas reduced its claim from $78M to $62M, a figure that <br />includes prejudgment interest, which we do not think is appropriate. Kansas' claim in 1998 <br />dollars (adjusted for inflation, but with no interest) totals $2IM. By comparison, our eyidence in <br />1998 dollars indicates a much lower damage award. Different assumptions by Colorado and <br />Kansas result in vastly different amounts of damages. The states are preparing briefs for the <br />Master. We expect the Master to issue a final report on damages in September, after which the <br />states will haye an opportunity to file exceptions with the U.S. Supreme Court. Several issues <br />still remain to be tried: whether Colorado was in compliance in 1997, 98, and 99 and how future <br />compliance should be determined. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Kansas v. Nebraska, United States Supreme Court, No. 126, Original. <br /> <br />Issue: Does the Republican River Compact allocate groundwater? <br /> <br />Decision: Special Master Vincent McKusick issued a report recommending to the Court that <br />the Compact restricts the compacting states' consumption of all ground water - alluvial and <br />Ogallala - that depletes stream flow in the Republican River Basin. <br /> <br />Discussion: Kansas filed an original action against Nebraska in the U.S. Supreme Court in <br />1998, alleging that Nebraska had violated the Republican River Compact by allowing post- <br />compact wells to consume more water than allowed under the Compact. Nebraska filed a motion <br />to dismiss, claiming that no groundwater was allocated under the Compact. Kansas argues that <br />the Compact includes both alluvial and Ogallala Aquifer groundwater. Colorado's position is <br />that the Compact includes alluvial, but not Ogallala, groundwater. On January 28th, the Master <br />issued a report recommending that the Compact allocates both alluvial and Ogallala <br />groundwater. Although Kansas has not alleged a Compact violation by Colorado, if the Court <br />accepts the Master's recommendation, the case could affect Ogallala Aquifer water users in <br />Colorado. At the yery least, determining Ogallala impacts will require a complex technical trial. <br />We are preparing exceptions to the report, which are due in the United States Supreme Court on <br />Apri17tfi. <br /> <br />Animas-La Plata Project. <br /> <br />Issue: Will legislation authorizing construction of the Animas-La Plata Project and <br />finally settling the Ute Tribes' reserved rights claims on the Animas and La Plata Rivers be <br />enacted this session? <br /> <br />Decision: Pending. <br /> <br />Discussion. In 1986, Colorado entered into a settlement agreement, which was approved by <br />Congress in 1988, that resolved the Ute Tribes' reserved rights claims in Water Division 7. Part <br />of that settlement is contingent upon construction of the Animas-La Plata Project. The <br />settlement provides that if the project is not completed by January I, 2000 - which of course it <br />wasn't - the Tribes have five years to commence litigation of their claims from the Animas and <br />. La Plata rivers. After years of delay, the project is again moving forward. In 1998, Secretary of <br /> <br />3 <br />